No, well, the topic of the theft of intellectual property by Kalashnikov never leaves the pages. There are still individuals who, after reading the material that refutes it, immediately happily declare: “I told you! Stole! Stole! So in the article it is recognized! "
Humanly, I understand them. Well, I don’t want to admit that at the time the poorly educated sergeant of the Red Army surpassed the blond beast - the greatest gunsmith of all times and peoples.
True, I personally consider the nameless monkey, the greatest gunsmith of all times and peoples, to insert a flint hand chopped into a split stick. But this - by the way.
Hugo Schmeisser - master. But do not forget that he is not a loner, but the leader of a large creative team, and he did not shy away from borrowing.
Yes, and his talent, if you look, is very one-sided.
Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:
From the "characteristics" of foreign specialists in the department of the chief designer of the plant No. 74 (Izhevsk, 1949) :
Schmeiser Hugo Max Richord. He has no technical education. In the course of his work on projects, he showed himself as a constructor practitioner. From any design development refuses, citing the lack of special education and the inability to independently design. It cannot be used in any works of the plant.
So he is rather an organizer.
In one of the publications, retired colonel Mikhail Timoshenko claims that Schmeisser himself copied the trigger mechanism from Holek's Czech rifle ZH-29.
From 16 December 1947 to 11 in January 1948, the research and testing range of small arms and mortar weapons of the Main Artillery Directorate of the Armed Forces (NPSMVO) of the USSR became the arena of the final stage of competitive tests of a promising machine gun.
Samples developed by M. T. Kalashnikov (AK-47), A. A. Dementyev (KB-P-410) and A. A. Bulkin (TKB-415) were provided for testing.
In 1947, each of the designers had the opportunity to hold in the hands of the brainchild of Schmeisser. It would be logical to assume that certain features of Stg. 44 will be present presented models.
But the appearance of the AK-47 does not allow to make an unequivocal conclusion about borrowing.
Assuming that AK-47 is a modified and improved Stg. 44, it is also logical to assume that the AK-46 should carry even more features of the German progenitor.
However, even AK-46 has no design features identical to Stg. 44, with the exception of the neck, where the store is inserted. And the design of the bolt carrier with a gas piston differ even more. Agree, on the basis of this talk of plagiarism look exaggerated.
The same applies to the second competitive model - TKB-415 A.A. Bulkina.
Comparing the systems of Bulkin and Kalashnikov, I am really inclined to assume that they have a common predecessor, from which, if they are not copied, the general design is taken. And such a predecessor was found. This is an automatic Sudaeva AC-44.
Automatic Sudaeva, 1-I model.
Here, if you wish, you can see some similarities with the Sturmgever, which consists in a similar overlapping of the trigger assembly and fastening the butt. But no more than that. Given that this model was developed in 1943, the Schmeisser Soudaev model, if it saw, then only the early one - MKb 42 (H).
And even more so does not resemble the MKb 42 (H) Schmeisser 2-I Sudya model. But the similarity with Kalashnikov is much more significant.
Sudayev provided the 1944 of the year for the contest in 4, which is still further away from Schmeisser’s concept, approaching, or rather, returning to the design of the pre-war Simonov and Tokarev rifles.
That is, in fact, Sudayev did not take anything from Schmeisser. But the ergonomics of Kalashnikov and Bulkin automata are clearly borrowed from the second model of Sudayev.
But only ergonomics. For the remaining nodes are sufficiently unique.
But still, it seems to me, there was, there was an automaton, which represents a frank attempt to copy the individual elements of Sturmgever. This is the third submitted to the competition machine designer Dementieva - KB-P-410.
Here the resemblance is much more noticeable. This is a separate trigger assembly; it is a form of the butt against which the return spring abuts. But here is the design of the bolt and then another. That is, borrowed only one design.
And the external similarity does not say anything. On this basis, far-reaching conclusions can only be made by a person who has never looked inside the receiver.
Although it seems to me, it is for these people that the shape of the store is key.
But most importantly, if Sturmgever is so good, why fantasize? Put it on stream, like a Zhiguli in 1972, and don’t bother!
I do not know if I convinced the remaining non-believers, but for me personally the question is clear. If we talk about the fact that Kalashnikov used someone else's experience, then most likely this is the experience of Sudayev, who was frankly neglected by Schmeisser’s experience.